Re: [HACKERS] Varying results when using merge joins overpostgres_fdw vs hash joins - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Corey Huinker
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Varying results when using merge joins overpostgres_fdw vs hash joins
Date
Msg-id CADkLM=cUQTm3UfWYFkn9F_3Ptkf1Y_pmZBcK+B15JArZPrB0hw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Varying results when using merge joins over postgres_fdw vs hash joins  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Varying results when using merge joins over postgres_fdw vs hash joins  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
I'm not sure whether there's a way to fix this that doesn't break other
cases.  We could retrieve the pg_database.datcollate string from the
remote, but that doesn't necessarily match up with any collation name
we know about locally.  One pretty common failure mode would be that
the datcollate string isn't a canonical spelling (eg, "en_US.UTF-8"
where the name we know about is "en_US.utf8").  In general, datcollate
is handled through other code paths than collation names, so it might
easily be that it doesn't match anything in the remote's pg_collation
catalog either :-(.

This is where we got stuck as well (+David who did a lot of digging on this issue). Hence submitting the discovery without our half-baked patch.

We had difficulty finding the place in the code were LC_COLLATE gets recombobulated into a recognized collation.
 

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] Assertion failure when the non-exclusive pg_stop_backup aborted.
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Varying results when using merge joins overpostgres_fdw vs hash joins